Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001068
Original file (MD1001068.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20100326
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
         Narrative Reason change to:

Summary of Service
Prior Service:
Inactive:                           Active:          19860821 - 19861217 (HON)
          USA ( NG )          19861218 - 19891015
USMCR (DEP)      19900330 - 19900501     Active:           19900502 - 19940418 (HON)
                                             19940419 - 19970509 (HON)
                                             19970510 - 20011217 (HON)
 Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20011218     Age at Current Enlistment: 35
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20070814      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 27 D a y ( s )
Education Level: (10)   AFQT: 56
MOS: 0151/0193
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): Not applicable      Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle SS, Pistol MM, , (x2), JSAM, (x4), (x2), , (x2), , CertCom (x3), Cert App, LoA (x3) , Army Service Ribbon

Periods of UA / CONF :

NJP:

- 20050524 :      Article 93 , 2 specifications (each specification occurring on or about Nov 2004, two separate persons)
         Specification 1: (Making Lewd and Sexual remarks to a subordinate female Marine as the SNCOIC)
         Specification 2: (Making Lewd and Sexual remarks to a subordinate female Marine as the SNCOIC)
         Awarded: (40/40), Suspended: For 6 m onths , unless sooner vacated

SCM:    

SPCM:   

- 20050401 :       Art icle (Wrongful use, possession, etc of a controlled substance)
         Specification 1: ( On or about 14 Aug 2004, at or near Beaufort SC, did w rongful ly use marijuana)
         Art icle 107 (False Official Statements)
         Specification 1: (On or about 16 September 2004, did, with intent to deceive, make an official statement to investigators, which statement was false and was known to be false by the Applicant at the time)
         Sentence : , , to the limits of MCAS Beaufort , SC for 30 days.

CC:
        
Retention Warning Counseling : 19970513 : For confirmed Level IV Spousal Abuse and civilian and military police involvement in domestic disturbances .

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

 Related to Military Service:
         DD 214:            Service/ Medical Record:            Other Records:   
(Verbatim Record of Trial at Special
Court Martial, volume I, II, and III)
Related to Post-Service Period:
         Employment:               Finances:                 Education/Training:     
         Health/Medical Records:           Rehabilitation/Treatment:                  Criminal Records:       
         Personal Documentation :           Community Service:                References:     
         Department of VA letter:                  Oth er Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements :
         From Applicant:            From /To Representation:            From /To Congress m ember :        

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Paragraph 1105, DISCHARGE ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURT-MARTIAL , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 1 September 2001 until Present.

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part IV, Para 403m(7)(a), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications .

C . Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs , Part V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity .




DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       Nondecisional issues : The Applicant seeks reinstatement into the Marine Corps and retirement , with restoration of his previous rank , promotion to his selected grade, and all back pay due .

2.       Decisional issues : (1) The Applicant contends that he was court-martialed erroneously. (2) The Applicant contends that after serving 16 years of active duty service, his record does not warrant a Bad Conduct Discharge. (3) The Applicant contends that he was treated unfairly and that his Court - Martial was not equitable , and further, the Government counsel violated his civil rights.

Decision

Date: 20 1 1 04 29            Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation : None

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .
Discussion

 In reviewing discharges, the NDRB presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed. In response to the Applicant ’ s clemency request, relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts. The Applicant ’ s case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency.

The Applicant’s service record indicates he entered military service at age 2 3 after a period of service in the United States Army National Guard. The Applicant completed three prior periods of continuous honorable active duty service from May 1990 until December 2001. He reenlisted in December 2001 under a 4-year re enlistment contract with a twelve month extension as a USMC Administration Chief. The Applicant acknowledged his complete understanding of the Marine Corps Policy Concerning Illegal Use of Drugs, in writing and witnessed , on 30 March 1990 . The highest rank achieved by the Applicant during his enlistment was E-6/Staff Sergeant .

The Applicant’s record of service reflects one 6105 retention-counseling warning . During the Applicant’s current enlistment period, his record of service reflects one non-judicial punishment for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); Article 93 ( Cruelty, maltreatment of subordinates; specifically, two specifications of making lewd and sexual remarks to subordinate female Marines as their Staff Noncommissioned Officer in C harge) . Additionally, the Applicant’s service record contains a punitive punishment as adjudged by a S pecial C ourt -M artial dated 01 April 2005 . The Applicant was subject to Special Court - Martial for violation of Article 107 ( False official statement) and Article 112( a ) (Wrongful use, possession, etc of a controlled substance ) . Q ualified legal defense counsel represented him during his trial by Special Court-Martial.

There was no pre-trial agreement in place in regards to the Special Court - Martial , and the Applicant served no time in pre-tri a l confinement. T he Applicant elected to be tried by a court-martial composed of members with enlisted representation and entered pleas of not guilty to the referred charges and specifications . The members of the C ourt- M artial found the Applicant guilty of both charges; the sentence adjudged was to be reduced to the pay grade E-1, restricted to the limits of the Marine Corps Air Station for a period of 30 days, and to be discharged from the service with a Bad Conduct Discharge. The case was submitted for review - with assignment of error - to the U.S. Navy–Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals; it was reviewed and the findings were affirmed on 17 April 2007 . The Applicant was notified of the Criminal Appeals Court decision regarding his review and the specified assignments of error. The Applicant did not exercise his right to petition the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces. As such, the Navy - Marine Corps Appellate Leave Activity subsequently ordered the Bad Conduct Discharge executed on 19 June 2007 . Besides his DD Form 293, the Applicant provided a copy of his Department of Veterans Affairs determination of entitlements and a copy of his request for assistance submitted to his Congressional Representative.


Nondecisional issue - The Applicant seeks reinstatement into the Marine Corps and retirement, with restoration of his previous rank, promotion to his selected grade, and all back pay monies due. either for which the NDRB cannot form the basis of relief requested by the Applicant, or the NDRB does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum regarding Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD ). Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of the charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief.

The Applicant was advised of his rights of appeal and he acknowledged those rights, in writing; specifically, he acknowledged his right to seek further review of his court-martial conviction before the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and , ultimately , the U . S . Supreme Court. As regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of clemency under the pertinent standards of equity, this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.

Decisional Issues : (Clemency) - RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. (1) The Applicant contends that he was court-martialed erroneously and the Government counsel violated his civil rights . (2) The Applicant contends that after serving 16 years of active duty service, his record does not warrant a Bad Conduct Discharge. (3) The Applicant contends that he was treated unfairly and that his Court - Martia l was not equitable.

In reviewing discharges, the NDRB presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial, credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. Besides the Applicant ’ s statement on the DD Form 293 and his affidavit of non-involvement with civil legal authorities, the Applicant failed to provide any documentation or evidence on his behalf regarding any extenuating or mitigating circumstances surrounding his discharge. The NDRB conducted a thorough review of the Applicant’s discharge under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency.

Issue 1 - The Applicant contends that he was court-martialed erroneously and the Government counsel violated his civil rights. The NDRB reviewed the Verbati m Record of Tri a l by Special Court-Martial and all attendant appeal s . The Applicant was identified as having violated Article 112(a) through positive confirmation of marijuana metabolites in his urine sample following a command - directed unit sweep urinalysis test. The Applicant was properly referred to trial by court-martial by the convening authority; he was represented by counsel and elected to exercise his right to a trial by court-martial composed of a panel of enlisted and officer members. Based on the evidence presented, the Applicant was convicted , contrary to his pleas. The Applicant appealed his case to the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, alleging three assignments of error during his trial. A three - judge panel examined the record of trial, the Applicant’s assignments of error, and the government’s responses; they concluded that the findings and the sentence were correct in law and fact and that no errors materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the Applicant were committed. The Applicant and his counsel were properly notified of the Court’s decision; they chose not to exercise their right to further appeal to the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces. The NDRB determined that the Applicant was not erroneously court-martialed and that this issue is w ithout merit . R elief denied.

Issue 2 - The Applicant contends that after serving 16 years of active duty service, his record does not warrant a Bad Conduct Discharge. Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, c ertain serious offenses warrant consideration for separation from the service in order to maintain good order and discipline. Violation of Article 112(a) is one such offense , requiring, at a minimum, processing for administrative separation regardless of grade or time in service and usually results in an unfavorable characterization of service at discharge. However, a punitive discharge and possible confinement - if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial - is also warranted. In this specific case, the Applicant was a Staff Noncommissioned Officer (SNCO). As such , the Applicant was afforded special trust and confidence as a leader of Marines. Moreover, he was a S taff N oncommissioned O fficer in C harge (SNCOIC) , vested with the authorit y and responsibilit y of leading, teaching, training, and mentoring young Marines. Given these unique circumstances, the command opted to pursue punitive, vice administrative, action in order to maintain good order, discipline, accountability, and responsibility.

N othing in the evidence of record indicates that the Applicant’s punitive discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline of the United States Marine Corps. The evidence of record documents that the Applicant committed a serious offense, that separation from the Naval Service was appropriate, and that a Bad Conduct Discharge, as adjudged, was warranted. The NDRB determined that t he Applicant’s misconduct violate d the special trust and confidence vested in him as a SNCO , severely undermin ing the good order and discipline of the command and of the service. Given the Applicant’s leadership position, the special trust and confidence vested in him as a SNCO, and the fact that he was adjudged and sentenced by a panel of enlisted and officer members, the NDRB determined that the punitive discharge , as adjudged, w as warranted and that clemency is not warranted . Relief denied.
Issue 3 - The Applicant contends that he was treated unfairly and that his Court - Martial was not equitable. The Applicant completed his first three enlistments with Honorable characterization s of service ; these periods of H onorable service are correctly reflected on the Applicant ’ s DD Form 214 . H owever, each enlistment contract is an independent obligation and characterization of service is determined for that specific period of service without regard to previous periods of service . The Applicant’s service record documents a retention -warning counseling regarding c onfirmed level IV spousal abuse and repetitive civilian and military police involvement in domestic disturbances ; this counseling advised him that failure to take corrective actions or any further violations of the UCMJ may result in administrative separation, judicial processing, or limitations on his future service. The Applicant’s misconduct of record during his current enlistment period violated the retention warning of record. During his current enlistment period, t he Applicant was referred to tri a l by S pecial C ourt -M artial for the i llegal use of drugs in violation of Article 112(a) of the UCMJ and for violation of Article 107 for making false official statements to investigators. A jury panel comprised of enlisted and officer members found the Applicant guilty of the specified misconduct at trial by court-martial; they further determined that separation was warranted and adjudged a Bad Conduct Discharge. Additionally, during the Applicant’s current enlistment he was found guilty at a nonjudicial punishment for violating Article 93 of the UCMJ - mistreatment of subordinates by making lewd sexual comments to subordinates while in a position of special trust and confidence as the SNCOIC . The Applicant was afforded all of his legal rights, to include legal counsel representation, trial by court-martial , and an appeal s process.

T he NDRB found the evidence of record, along with the Applicant’s statements, did not contain sufficient mitigating or extenuating factors to offset the seriousness of the offenses for which the discharge was awarded. Furthermore, the NDRB determined that the A pplicant was afforded all his legal rights and was not unjustly treated. Given the leadership position and seniority of the member, coupled with the misconduct, the NDRB agreed unanimously that the punishment, as awarded, was equitable . Accordingly, re lief in the form of clemency is not warranted.
Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, the verbatim transcript record of trial by Special Court-Martial, and the discharge process, the NDRB determined that Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE and the narrative reason for separation shall remain . The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraphs titled Additional Reviews and Post-Service Conduct .


ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant

 Complaint Procedures : If you believe the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction before submitting such a complaint. The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness. You may view DoD Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ http://Boards.law.af.mil . ”

Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge. The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any additional evidence related to this discharge. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required. There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Disable d American Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted their opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.
Service Benefits: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.
Employment/Educational Opportunities : The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

 Reenlistment/RE-code: Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. Only the BCNR can make changes to reenlistment codes. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.
Medical Conditions and Misconduct : DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation. Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons. Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings. If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons. Only the BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

 Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.
Post-Service Conduct : The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board reviews. Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle. The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD ): Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed. The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

Board Membership: The names and votes of the members of the NDRB Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

 Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
 Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
 720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023

Similar Decisions

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600352

    Original file (MD0600352.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Findings : Guilty Charge III: Violation of Article 91: Specification: On or about 000228, was disrespectful toward Sergeant J_ H_, U.S. Marine Corps. Findings : Guilty Charge IV: Violation of Article 112a: Specification: Did, between 000123 and 000224, wrongfully use marijuana. Findings : Guilty Sentence: Confinement for 90 days, forfeiture of $630.00 per month for 3 months, Bad Conduct discharge.

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00956

    Original file (MD03-00956.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Sentence: Confinement for 23 days, and a bad conduct discharge. The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, unauthorized absence; Article 91, disobey the order of a NCO; Article 92, disobey a lawful order; and Article 112a, possession of drug paraphernalia.

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501393

    Original file (MD0501393.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD05-01393 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050815. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION CA 970121: The sentence approved and, except for bad conduct discharge will be executed, but the execution of that part of the sentence extending to all confinement in excess of 45 days is suspended for a period of 12 months from date of trial.960724: Joined Marine Corp Base Brig, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina for confinement [Date extracted from DD Form 214].

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100713

    Original file (MD1100713.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive:USMCR (DEP)19920827 - 19930720Active: 19930721 - 19970309 HON USMC 19970310 - 20010228 HON Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20010301Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20060626Highest Rank:Length of Service: Years Months26 DaysEducation Level: AFQT:59MOS: 6257Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):N/AFitness...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902574

    Original file (MD0902574.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, and post-service accomplishments, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted and that the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenses he committed. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801385

    Original file (MD0801385.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    As stated above and documented in the Applicant’s record of service, he admitted to homosexual conduct which can result in the discharge of military service members. The Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100573

    Original file (MD1100573.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    As a result of this misconduct, the Applicant received a formal retention-counseling warning(20050210) related to his failure to obey orders or regulations and was advised that further misconduct could result in administrative separation or punitive action. Issue 1: (Decisional) (Clemency)CLEMENCY NOT WARRANTED. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301254

    Original file (MD1301254.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service record documents a punitive conviction and punishment, as adjudged by a Special Court-Martial, on 17 May 2005. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1002044

    Original file (MD1002044.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service record documents that he completed the adjudicated period of confinement as awarded by the Special Court-Martial sentence. On 14 May 1996, the Applicant submitted a request for clemency to the Convening Authority; on 19 August, the Convening Authority acted on the request for clemency and reduced the sentence of confinement for six years to a period of four years. Having conducted a detailed review of both the records of trial by Special and by General Court-Martial...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500938

    Original file (ND0500938.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application: “Poor legal representation & lack of speedy trial.” Documentation Only the service record was were reviewed. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the Applicant’s issues were insufficient to merit clemency (C).